search_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and provides useful behavioral details: filters match by equality, all fields are optional, and results are scoped by the visibility policy. This goes beyond a bare 'Search' statement, though it does not cover return format or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences with no fluff. The first defines the resource, the second explains filter behavior, and the third discloses visibility scoping. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers purpose, resource definition, filter semantics, and security scoping. It does not mention return type or pagination, but for a simple search with three optional string filters, this is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and parameters are described only by name (id, text, author). The description adds that all filters are equality-based and optional, which is useful but generic. Field-specific semantics are not expanded upon, though property names are self-explanatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches Note objects and defines what a Note is ('A triage note — state no source system has a table for'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_note or aggregate_note. The verb 'Search' is specific and matches the tool's name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through 'All filter fields are optional' but does not explicitly state when to use search_note versus alternatives such as get_note for fetching by ID. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.